One of the horror genre's "most widely read critics" (Rue Morgue # 68), "an accomplished film journalist" (Comic Buyer's Guide #1535), and the award-winning author of Horror Films of the 1980s (2007), The Rock and Roll Film Encyclopedia (2007) and Horror Films of the 1970s (2002), John Kenneth Muir, presents his blog on film, television and nostalgia, named one of the Top 100 Film Studies Blog on the Net.

Monday, February 05, 2007

MOVIE REVIEW: The Omen 666 (2006)

David Seltzer's chilling tale about the Anti-Christ among us, The Omen, endures. The bicentennial year original has spawned two theatrical sequels, countenanced this re-make and even been remade as a TV movie called The Omen: The Awakening. At it's core, this durable franchise concerns a very deep-seated parental fear. In short, it meditates on the notion that your child, that little cherub you love so much, is not what he or she seems. That underneath the angelic smile are dark intentions, or worse -- pure evil. The concept of the film, about a changeling - a switcheroo between babies - also reflects the not uncommon terror that the child that you think is yours is actually someone else's progeny. If you're a parent, you know that can be potent nightmare fodder. Even if you're not one, I think you get it.

The original 1976 version of The Omen is a very good film, a strong horror picture. It starred Gregory Peck and Lee Remick as the unwitting, unsuspecting parents of that tyke, Damien, the growing Anti-Christ. The film also featured a stellar supporting cast that included Patrick Troughton, Leo McKern and David Warner. Perhaps more memorably, the film thrived on its intense and graphic violence. Anyone who has seen the film won't soon forget the plate glass decapitation sequence. Later films in the Omen cycle (1978's Damien: Omen II and 1981's The Final Conflict) came to rely more strongly on these violent set-pieces than upon characterization or internal consistency, but the original was nonetheless a potent fright-show. Like Rosemary's Baby and The Exorcist, it was a brilliant crystallization of parental fears about children.

So along comes this Hollywood remake, with Liev Schreiber in the Peck role (as Ambassador Robert Thorn), and Julia Stiles as his prone-to-depression wife. In a bit of stunt casting that works splendidly, Mia Farrow (Rosemary herself...) plays the evil Nanny, Ms. Baylock This is supremely ironic casting not merely because of Farrow's association with the famous Polanski devil-baby film, but because of her own personal history with Woody Allen. She's a serial-adopter (meaning she adopts children willy-nilly, seemingly...) and is known to possess a temper (she sent Woody a scary Valentine, allegedly...) Here, with a straight face, she gets to say lines such as "caring for children has been the joy of my life." Wonderful! This adds a nice little bit of campiness to a dour, lugubrious picture.

The Omen 666 is a beautifully-mounted production. Despite Ms. Farrow's presence, it's remarkably less kitschy, exploitative and fun than the 1970s version, and is in every way possible a product of its context, the early 21st century. This means that the production values are absolutely, utterly sterling...there's perfect lighting, a menacing soundtrack and the colors are rich and vibrant. The reds are redder, the blues steelier and the gold as shiny as gold can possibly be. No expense has been spared to make the film appear beautiful. The cast is "A" list all the way too, and Seltzer's screenplay moves with supreme confidence. So it should...this is essentially a rewrite. But back to the supporting cast: Michael Gambon has replaced Leo McKern, Pete Postelthwaite has taken the role of the doomed priest originally played by Troughton and David Thewlis subs for David Warner as the curious photographer. Those are all decent trades, I'd warrant (though I'm an unrepentant Troughton admirer; still my favorite time lord...). Finally, the death scenes here are - as in the original - clever, ruthless mousetraps. A sequence of unlikely events (like a hammer falling from a roof...) cause bloody deaths, and it's pretty impressively filmed. The Omen films were doing this kind of thing before Final Destination made them fashionable again.

I realize this is likely sacrilege, but I also prefer Liev Schreiber in the role of the ambassador. The late Gregory Peck is a terrific actor, no doubt, but his gravitas often translates on screen as CERTAINTY. He's a stolid, dependable fellow; the hero type. It's hard to feel that he's ever truly in danger, or physically jeopardized and I think his casting in the original film often worked against the enterprise. Liev Schreiber is a different breed all together, a little weaselly, a little wussy....but more human and recognizable as "one of us." He expresses more emotions in the role than Peck did, and that's a good thing. In some senses, this Omen feels more immediate (and heart-wrenching) because of his performance. Schreiber has a great scene when he discovers that his son - his real son - was murdered, and tossed thoughtlessly into a grave. His expression - his breakdown - perfectly captures the feelings of loss his character feels at that moment, as well as the regret over being a part of the "conspiracy" that killed the baby.

What the new Omen clearly lacks (besides the warm glow of nostalgia we apply to all our favorite 1970s horrors...) is any real sense of surprise, innovation or inspiration. This is pretty much a note-by-note remake of the '76 film, but with a bigger budget and more remarkable production values. I don't know that just those improvements are enough to merit the remake of a classic. At times, this remake goes beyond being faithful and actually feels slavish. That's not good. And hey, I'm a guy who likes my remakes faithful.

Oh, some modifications have been made to be sure. The destruction of the twin towers on 9/11, the space shuttle Columbia disaster and the tsunami and Hurricane Katrina have now been added to the prophecy that heralds the birth of the Devil's Child. This makes the movie feel timely again, and I particularly enjoyed the notion that the Anti-Christ rises in the world of politics (a sea of politics, the film suggests), and in the process separates man from his brother. In the current blue state/red state divide, this passage reads as more relevant than ever. No doubt the Anti-Christ thinks he's a uniter, not a divider, but I'll trust the Church's prophecy on that one...

Of course, it's a truism that every generation thinks it's the very one that will see the End Times. I'm old enough to remember Ronald Reagan and Secretary of the Interior James Watts testifying in People Magazine and before Congress respectively that they both believed the 1980s would be the "last' generation before Armageddon. I bet if you asked George W. Bush and other evangelicals, they'd tell you they see the signs of the End Times happening today. Still, with war raging in the Middle East and climate change threatening the future, I guess a case could be made today that the end of the world is nigh.

We've sure seen many remakes of 1970s horror recently. The Texas Chain Saw Massacre, The Amityville Horror, and The Hills Have Eyes leap immediately to mind. Maybe we go back to these stories, and to The Omen, because we're in an analogous time period today. I can see many parallels to the disco decade in post-911 America. The nation is divided and involved in an unpopular war (Vietnam in the 1970s/Iraq now) and we're saddled with an unpopular president (Nixon in the 70s/Dubya now). Or, conversely maybe Hollywood is just bereft of original ideas. In the years to come, I suspect that it will be the original The Omen that continues to get the most play. This remake isn't terrible. It's not bad even. I harbor no hate in my heart for it, and rather enjoyed spending time with the effort. It was better than I thought it would be.

Nope...it's just an entirely unnecessary movie. It's true that if you've seen the first Omen, you probably have no compelling reason to see this one. Nothing new or unexpected happens. However, I do recommend the movie. It's worth the cost of the rental fee if for no other reason than to see Mia Farrow run over by Liev Schreiber, her body thrown into the air like a rag doll, landing on concrete with a thud.

Former Talk Show Host Writes Book Media Contact:Challenging the Politics of Evangelicals Joe Ortiz (909) 653-4295

Redlands, CA - A former Los Angeles-based talk show host has written a book that challenges the evangelical doctrine that attempts to influence the U.S.’s political decisions concerning the state of Israel. Joe Ortiz, the first Mexican American to host and English-language talk show on a commercial radio station, claims evangelicals who support the dispensational, premillennial doctrine have been misinformed by proponents who have misinterpreted the Bible. Ortiz claims in his book, The End Times Passover (published by Author House) that careful scrutiny of the Bible proves that the Promised Land is not in the Middle East, the state of Israel is not God’s time piece to Armageddon, that there will be no Pre-Tribulation Rapture, and that God’s true disciples will experience great tribulation. “Right wing evangelicals who promote the Left Behind doctrine (like Tim LaHaye, John Hagee, Hal Lindsey and others), believe the State of Israel is key to Bible prophecy,” said Ortiz. “The proponents of this erroneous doctrine have unwittingly been pounding their theological hammers on U.S. foreign policy for over a century, only to drive a bigger wedge between Jews and Arabs who want peace in the Middle East. Ortiz stated his book is not a politically-motivated treatise designed to influence people to choose sides between Palestinians or Jews. He said his is an academic polemic designed for people to recognize their role should be one of peacemakers rather than promoting military solutions to a feud that’s been going on for centuries. He said his research was based on analyzing the etymology of key words in the Bible that prove conclusively that the Left Behind notion promoted by many evangelicals begins to fall apart when examined carefully. “It took over 20 years of research to provide conclusive answers to the premillennial, dispensational debate,” said Ortiz. The author’s media experience includes more than 20 years of news reporting and hosting programs on TV and radio, as well as writing for a syndicated publisher in California. Ortiz claims that “when those preachers and teachers of Bible prophecy read this book, they will soon realize they have been promoting a militant and destructive doctrine instead of a genuine gospel of peace.”-30- EDITORS: For review copies or interview requests, contact: Author House’s Promotional Services Department (When requesting a review copy, please provide a street address.)Tel: 888-728-8467 Fax: 812-961-3133 Email: pressreleases@authorhouse.com

Nice piece. If I may lazily paste what I am writing about The Omen remake for my own blog:"If it doesn't look like London and it doesn't smell like London, it's probably not London. Gothic arches? Slightly Euro phone boxes? An American Embassy that appears to be somewhere around Whitechapel?? A castle-like home for the ambassador in Greenwich (or is it Richmond?)? The Omen remake (2006) didn't feel like London to us. "It's actually Prague!" chuckles the director on the DVD commentary. No sh*t. That's probably why it looks like Prague, then. Globally ignorant Hollywood directors, eh? Except John Moore is Irish. Mr Moore, you make us 666."www.urbanspectator.net

About John

award-winning author of 27 books including Horror Films FAQ (2013), Horror Films of the 1990s (2011), Horror Films of the 1980s (2007), TV Year (2007), The Rock and Roll Film Encyclopedia (2007), Mercy in Her Eyes: The Films of Mira Nair (2006),, Best in Show: The Films of Christopher Guest and Company (2004), The Unseen Force: The Films of Sam Raimi (2004), An Askew View: The Films of Kevin Smith (2002), The Encyclopedia of Superheroes on Film & Television (2004), Exploring Space:1999 (1997), An Analytical Guide to TV's Battlestar Galactica (1998), Terror Television (2001), Space:1999 - The Forsaken (2003) and Horror Films of the 1970s (2002).

What the Critics Say...

"...some of the best writing about the genre has been done by John Kenneth Muir. I am particularly grateful to him for the time and attention he's paid to things others have overlooked, under-appreciated and often written off. His is a fan's perspective first, but with a critic's eye to theme and underscore, to influence and pastiche..." - Chris Carter, creator of The X-Files, in the foreword to Horror Films FAQ (October 2013).

"Hands down, John Kenneth Muir is one of the finest critics and writers working today. His deep analysis of contemporary American culture is always illuminating and insightful. John's film writing and criticism is outstanding and a great place to start for any budding writer, but one should also examine his work on comic books, TV, and music. His weighty catalog of books and essays combined with his significant blog production places him at the top of pop culture writers. Johns work is essential in understanding the centrality of culture in modern society." - Professor Bob Batchelor, cultural historian and Executive Director of the James Pedas Communication Center at Thiel College (2014).

"...an independent film scholar, [Muir] explains film studies concepts in a language that is reader-friendly and engaging..." (The Hindu, 2007)"...Muir's genius lies in his giving context to the films..." (Choice, 2007)